Apple Will Appeal Judge’s Scathing Ruling In Epic Games Case

In the ongoing battle of the Tims, Apple CEO Tim Cook said the company plans to appeal a judge’s ruling yesterday that it has violated a court order in a legal fight with Fortnite maker Epic Games.

“We strongly disagree,” he said on a conference call with analysts after quarterly earnings. “We have complied with the court’s order and we are going to appeal,” he said in response to question about the scathing judgement yesterday in the antitrust fight that dates back to 2021.

Federal Judge Yvonne Gonzalez said Apple knowingly violated a court order prohibiting it from collecting fees on purchases made outside of iOS apps. It held the company in contempt and referred Apple and one of its executives to federal prosecutors for a possible criminal investigation.

“NO FEES on web transactions. Game over for the Apple Tax,” gloated Tim Sweeney on X.

Rogers’ original ruling had ordered Apple to lower barriers to its exclusive and what she called anticompetitive payment system for in-app transactions by allowing developers to display links to alternative payment options. She said Wednesday that the company had violated that injunction.

“Apple’s continued attempts to interfere with competition will not be tolerated,” she wrote, ordering the company to “no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users” to “levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases.”

Epic had yanked Fortnite the app store but said it could return, depending on Apple’s response to the ruling. “We will return Fortnite to the US iOS App Store next week,” Sweeney wrote on X. “Epic puts forth a peace proposal: If Apple extends the court’s friction-free, Apple-tax-free framework worldwide, we’ll return Fortnite to the App Store worldwide and drop current and future litigation on the topic.” He now has his response from Apple.

Another hurdle that analyst noted is a Department of Justice case against Google, which could have ripple effects on Apple as the two companies do significant business together. Asked about that as well, Cook said it’s too early to discus any potential impact.

“The DOJ case that you referenced with Google, that case is ongoing and I don’t really have anything to add beyond that. We are monitoring these things closely but, as you pointed out, there’s risk associated with them and the outcome is unclear.”

In August, a U.S. judge ruled that the Alphabet-owned search giant was operating an illegal monopoly. In the remedies phase last month, The DOJ asked US District Judge Amit Mehta to approve several remedies, including a forced divestment by parent Alphabet of Google’s Chrome web browser. That could squeeze a lucrative deal that makes Google’s search enie the default on Apple devices.